|
|
| (222 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Shortcut|[[A/D/S]]}} | | {{Shortcut|[[A/D/S]]}} |
| {{Moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
| {{TOCright}} | | {{TOCright}} |
|
| |
|
| Line 14: |
Line 14: |
| Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) | | Remember that votes must be signed and datestamped (use <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) |
|
| |
|
| After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the request fails to get the required number of votes, it doesn't get added. In either case, the closed request can then get shifted to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|Archive]]. | | After the two weeks are up, if the page has reached at least a 50% majority in favour it is added to the Scheduled list. If the vote fails, it will be cycled as unsuccessful. The closed request can then get shifted to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|Archive]]. |
|
| |
|
| ==Scheduling requests under consideration== | | ==Scheduling requests under consideration== |
| <!--''There are currently no requests under consideration.''--> | | <!--''There are currently no requests under consideration.''--> |
| ===Unused Images===
| | ''There are currently no requests under consideration.'' |
| Basically the same thing as [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Unused_images|last time]], and with the same reasoning, except with 2 weeks' leeway instead of 1. I have yet to see any image go unused for more than 2 weeks that didn't also make it to a month without being linked somewhere. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ==Recent Requests== |
| | | <!--''There are currently no recently served requests.'' --> |
| #'''Yes''' {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ''There are currently no recently served requests.'' |
| #'''Yes''' --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|DimGray|Crimson}}-- 13:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' Same as last time, same response. One week extra doesn't cut it for me. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:then die {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 14:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::What's that Bob, a death threat? Off to A/VB with you then! --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::hm yase a death threat. thats exactly what it was; a literal threat for your literal death posted on a wiki. on a page for the deletion of 1's and 0's. u r smert {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::It's amusing to see how serious you take me sometimes. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Two weeks is more reasonable.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 15:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Two weeks sounds good to me.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 17:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - As above. One week is really short. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 18:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''<s>Yea</s> No''' - <s>Seems reasonable as an expected implementation time-frame, and may prompt people to concentrate on finishing what they start.</s> Fail user is fail. I should have read the existing policy, and a month strikes me as fine for a ceiling. -[[User:Wulfenbach|Wulfenbach]] 19:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:I've been deleting these things for months and I can tell you that it is not fine. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::...and I thank you (seriously) for your work on it, but what are the technical drawbacks of letting it go to one month rather than half that time? Is the wiki running out of storage space? Why the rush to delete? -[[User:Wulfenbach|Wulfenbach]] 11:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::If we followed that kind of reasoning when the wiki was first made we would not have A/SD. "Disk space = cheep" is not a good enough reason for anything. This is a ''compromise'' from my last proposal that would still see the amount of wastage severely reduced. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::I'm sorry, Bob, but having just read the A/SD policy, I cannot see how my reasoning/example/request for clarification leads to NOT having A/SD. If anything, I can see the deletion of unlinked pictures after a given timeframe as being a A/SD criterion. The issue as I understand it is why 2 weeks? Why 1 week? Why 1 month? Why is it better to delete after 2 weeks than one month? You've said that in your experience it is common for a picture that is unlinked for two weeks is likely to remain unlinked. What's the frequency of this then? 9/10? 6/10? I believe you in that in your experience, the above is true. I just would like to see some empirical evidence. -[[User:Wulfenbach|Wulfenbach]] 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::::Ask [[User:J3D|Jed]] how the wiki would go out for hours because the server was getting full of data. If we can push the nuke date back a little while farther by getting rid of images people don't use then hell yes.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 11:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::::That's a complete strawman argument, new images that are being linked and therefore won't be subject to this are added to the wiki everyday. That's an argument to increase server space, not delete unwanted images quicker. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::::::It's actually an argument to do both. Yay! {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::::::Don't worry Bob, I'm about to make all your troubles go away. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' indeed --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - As [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Unused_images|last time]]. Once images are gone, they can't be retrieved. It doesn't happen often, but they can become unused without anyone noticing via vandalism, or pages that get deleted and are later requested for undeletion <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 23:59 26 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #:By "doesn't happen often" you mean "has never happened in the history of the wiki", right? You're theorycrafting ridiculously implausible situations for the sake of being contrary. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::Well, Hagnat, at least, has lost images from one of his old group pages, when Conn SDed it, and then immediately schedule deleted the images. I don't see the need for this, apart from you wanting the unused image list to be ''slightly'' shorter. Meh <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:16 28 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #:::If by "slightly" you mean "nearly cut in half" then I agree. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::So what's the big deal with that boxy? If they're in need of being used in the future, just make the request for undeletion, or reupload them. Doesn't really seem like that big of a deal to me. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 18:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::Can't undelete images. Can reupload, though the whole "may not have the file any more to upload" poses a problem. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|DimGray|Crimson}}-- 09:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::If you don't keep a copy of ''anything'' you upload to any Internet site on your harddrive then you're doing it wrong. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - As Boxy, I see absolutely no reason why they need to go in two weeks rather than a month. Perhaps the server is straining under the weight of unused images that are three weeks old.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yesh''' - Better time duration. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 03:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - '''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 04:02, 27 November 2009 (BST)
| |
| #'''Nay''' - As those above. Unless there is a pressing reason for why it needs to be changed, I don't see a need for this change. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 06:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:The last time I brought this up there were roughly 50 unused images on the list. There are now 90. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::90 is an awfully... pointless... number without a sense of scale. Would you like to share with the boys and girls what percentage of all the images on the wiki '90' is? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::Much less than 1%, much, much less <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:31 28 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #'''Yes''' I don't know about other people,... but I try to link to an image first, then upload it to prevent my images from being unused. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 18:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' Month seems fine to me, what is the need to change?--[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' Same reason as before --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - The last edit merely indicates a "ceiling" on the time when an image was likely to have last been used on a page. Since it's acting as a ceiling, not a floor, there's every reason to be liberal in how much time is allowed. It'll rarely get in the way anyway, I should think. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:What are you talking about? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 10:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::Think we've found a new candidate for "worst wording of 2009" since Hag left. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|DimGray|Crimson}}-- 10:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::what is this i dont even--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::I know exactly what he's talking about.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::::Even half dead I think I get it too. I was saying that in response to DDR thinking ANYTHING could EVER come close to beating hag's record for mauling the English language the way he can. :) --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> SA</span>]] 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #::::::I'm sure one of you will get around to explaining to poor old dumb Cyberbob eventually. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::::::He's saying that just because an image shows up on the unused image list, and was uploaded more than a month ago, it doesn't mean that it wasn't potentially used on a page only minutes ago. The upload date is the "ceiling"... the time it was likely first used on a page, the "floor", the last time it was used, is anytime since then, potentially only minutes ago <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:31 28 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #::::::::Oh, that. This was brought up last time; it was also eliminated as a problem last time. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:::::::::Dismissed by some, not by others <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:39 28 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #::::::::::It wasn't "dismissed", it was actually dealt with. There are very reasonable measures that can (and are) be taken to ensure that images which have just been removed from their pages aren't necessarily deleted on sight. Again, all of this has been covered already - either you straight-up don't believe that they will be utilised or you're being contrary for the sake of it. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' [[User:Standard Zombie|Standard Zombie]] 15:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===Grouped Location Pages===
| |
| Grouped location pages, such as [[Shackleville Schools]], are to be deleted once they have been de-merged and incoming links (excluding those referencing deletion) have been diverted to the appropriate pages.--{{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 05:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| #'''Yes''' --{{User:OrangeGaf/Sig}} 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| | ''For older cases, please see the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive|archive]].'' |
| #'''Yea''' - It might not get used frequently, and only by a select few ops, but why the hell not. Basically, '''a)''' they are already crit 1's, and the more black-and-white sort of crit 1's, not "policy says c1's are 2 lines of text but this has 3". '''b)''' Anyone who attains sysop status will already know the correct procedure so it isn't like we will mess it up, and it isn't the sort of task that an unknowing sysop would do on a whim anyway, there is a lot of work involved beforehand. '''c)''' Even in the case of an op going rogue there is practically null way any sysop could abuse this as part of some personal vendetta etc. so I don't see why we shouldn't add this to get rid of the red tape to make it easier for location pages to conform with existing policy. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|red|black}}-- 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - Removing all the links is a monotonous task and it would be easy to miss some in the endless repetition of changing them. The oversight from sending it to A/SD ensures that nothing is missed. I see absolutely no great gain to be achieved in scheduling this and a potential problems if we change from the current system that works fine. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - Yeah. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Nay''' - As DDR mentioned, crit 1 speedy delete means these group pages get nuked anyway. And since unmerging is so involved, it's a good idea to have at least one other person review the links for errors. Finally, all of the group locations will be gone soon anyway, and this scheduling policy will then be defunct--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Forgot to vote. While the nays do bring up good points, I still feel that the sysops who participate in demerging (who would benifit from this) are trustworthy enough to do a thourough job.--{{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Though I'd suggest shelving it if and when it becomes defunct. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Nah. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - I had been wondering about these kinds of pages for a while but never really gave it much thought. There will be a lot of links to check and double-check, but I think that generally this is something that probably should have been done a long time ago. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 06:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - De facto because of Crit 1, just make it happen.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' If you've copied and pasted everything to relevant pages its already covered under crit 1, and i think its prudent to double check the likes of dunell hill streets. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' As Ross. Beeeeeee! --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #:Holeee Fuck. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Nope''' - It would be best to use A/SD in order for another user to double-check. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - I don't think this is necessary, given that there arn't [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Locationblockmerge|that many of them]] anyway <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 02:00 25 November 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| #'''Yes''' A job needed doing--[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yea''' - Saves time. --{{User:Haliman111/sig}} 18:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' [[User:Standard Zombie|Standard Zombie]] 15:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Recent Requests==
| | == [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule|Scheduled Deletions]] == |
| ===[[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Unnecessary_banned_user_pages|Unnecessary Banned User Pages]]===
| |
| '''Passed''' with 14 for and 2 against. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| {{UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule}} | | {{UDWiki:Administration/Deletion Schedule}} |
